About Me

"While browsing Hank Hanegraaf's website, I decided todo a search for the Orthodox Church and see what the site had to say about it.Initially it was rather respectful of the Church...then I came across thisarticle by Paul Negrut, entitled Searching for the True Apostolic Church: WhatEvangelicals Should Know about Eastern Orthodoxy and originally printed inHanegraaf's publication Christian Research Journal. What I read shocked me.

Negrut opens his article by citing the famous event where PeterGillquist, along with 2,000 followers from 17 different churches, embracedOrthodoxy. It was proclaimed by many of them as a "coming home" to the apostolicchurch. Taking a right turn, Negrut says to us that "one cannot avoid asking ifsuch statements are based on solid historical and theological arguments or ifthis movement is yet another religious diversion."

I am curious as towhat this "religious diversion" is. Diversion from what? Is the Orthodox Churchcomparable to Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, who are drawing people away fromthe true meaning of Christ? Perhaps Joel Kalvesmaki, editor of Dumbarton OaksResearch Library and who wrote a response to the article, is right when heasserts that the "growing number of converts to Orthodox Christianity from theirown ranks, Evangelicals have begun to publish to stave off the growing successof a Christian tradition that, until recently, has generally been unknown."However, I'm not particularly fond of conspiracy theories, and I don't thinkthis one article is proof of Protestant plan to turn people away from Orthodoxy- I think it is simply an example of someone ignoring the real facts due tostubborn thinking. I'm also not particularly fond of those with a "martyr'scomplex" and don't want to make those reading this blog for the first time thinkthe Orthodox population has such an attitude.

In any case, Negrut'sarticle is full of misunderstandings and fallacies, which I'd like to go into indetail by following his arguments point by point.

ORTHODOX FAITH ORFAITHS?

Negrut begins his critique of Orthodoxy by saying that,contrary to popular belief, "Orthodoxy is not a monolithic bloc that shares aunified tradition and church life." The term "Eastern Orthodoxy," Negrutexplains, "comprises all the Christian churches that separated at an early agefrom the Western tradition (Rome) in order to follow one of the ancientpatriarchies (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople)."

The problem here is that Negrut has his history completely reversed:Eastern Christianity did not split from Rome - Rome split from the East! I spokeabout this in greater detail in this entry, but I will summarize ithere.After the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome feltisolated due to political separation between east and west, and gradually moreand more power was granted to the Roman Pope, who began to act more independentof the other Churches. After conflicts of interest in the Balkans and Latinversus Greek services, a Roman delegation excommunicated the entire EasternChurch in the 11th century, thereby splitting west from east. The sacking ofConstantinople by Crusaders fulfilled the schism.This made me wonder if Negruthad really read Gillquist's book, rather than glanced through a few pages orread a couple of reviews for it. All of what I've just said is discussed frompages 47-53 of Becoming Orthodox, with two pages dedicated to a map showing thesplits Christianity experienced from the crucifixion of Christ to the Anglicanchurches."